- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 18:11:38 +0200
- To: dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU
- Cc: Dejing Dou <dejing.dou@yale.edu>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@belo.Stanford.EDU>, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, Jerome Euzenat <Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr>, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <pp@ksl.Stanford.EDU>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, sw-team@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
Hi Deb, I looked into http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/software/IW/tmp/ and thought how we (using n3 and euler) would express that right now and I was also thinking about Tim's remark about quoting the variables to express their binding (and started to (mis?)use your iw:Variable). So we would start from a couple of premises: your facts in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/deb.n3 [[ @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>. @prefix : <deb#>. :Tony a :CRAB. :CRAB rdfs:subClassOf :SEAFOOD. ]] and something at http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3 Then we wonder wether we can prove http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/debC.n3 [[ @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>. @prefix : <deb#>. :Tony a :SEAFOOD. ]] We get a single document proof argument http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/debE.n3 [[ # Generated with http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/#R3431 on 1 May 2003 15:30:00 GMT { ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3>.<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#semantics> <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/deb.n3>.<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#semantics> ).<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#conjunction> => <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/debC.n3>.<http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#semantics> } <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/reason#because> { @prefix str: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/string#>. @prefix ns: <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules#>. @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>. @prefix : <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/deb#>. @prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#>. @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>. @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>. @prefix iw: <http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/software/IW/spec/iw#>. @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>. { <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules#rdfs9>. {[ iw:Variable "?A"] = :CRAB. [ iw:Variable "?B"] = :SEAFOOD. [ iw:Variable "?A"] rdfs:subClassOf [ iw:Variable "?B"]} => {:CRAB rdfs:subClassOf :SEAFOOD}. {[ iw:Variable "?S"] = :Tony. [ iw:Variable "?A"] = :CRAB. [ iw:Variable "?S"] a [ iw:Variable "?A"]} => {:Tony a :CRAB}} => {:Tony a :SEAFOOD}. # Proof found for http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/debC.n3 in 45 steps (4500000 steps/sec) using 1 engine }. ]] which is n3 where {} is grouping a set of statements (triples) = is owl:sameAs => is log:implies iw: is a namespace prefix owned by www.ksl.stanford.edu etc... This is one document and I wonder if that is good... it's even 1 triple a-formula-got-from-web reason:because a-nested-proof-argument. Yes, the proof argument is a nested {} set of statements... -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ "Deborah L. McGuinness" To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> <dlm@ksl.Stanf cc: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA, Dejing Dou ord.EDU> <dejing.dou@yale.edu>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@belo.Stanford.EDU>, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, Jerome Euzenat 2003-04-30 <Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr>, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva 07:31 AM <pp@ksl.Stanford.EDU>, sw-team@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org Subject: Re: Explanations and Proof-Language Meeting, Follow-Up thanks also for your participation. In addition to the list below, i think there is one thing we would like to do to facilitate your usage: (I number it 6 as an extension to sandro's list below). 6. extend the portable proof specification so that there is a uri for premises. (we can run a proposal by whomever is appropriate - from the phone conversation that sound like it may be tim, sandro, and jos) Also, as asides as a result of comments today we will add: - a summary listing of sources used in a proof (in addition to the summary listing of the ground axioms used) a few comments below: Sandro Hawke wrote: Many thanks for the meeting http://www.w3.org/2003/04/29/swad/ and the irc log http://www.w3.org/2003/04/29-sw-team-irc Thanks for posting those. Thanks again to everyone who participated; even though we didn't cover the whole agenda, I think we got a long way given the subject matter and limitations of the medium. Moving forward, it seems like there are several mostly-separable areas of work: 1. modifications to cwm to output the language/files 2. write & publish the step & engine descriptions (perhaps via the ksl registrar, perhaps not...?) we would like to facilitate publishing through inference web. if there is some resistance to this, we would like to understand so that we can update iw to meet your needs. 3. dialog about modifications to the language, in general; mostly RDF-style issues, like adding URIs to nodes 4. figure out the content-language issue (KIF, RDF/XML reification, ...) we have users who need the expressive power of kif. if you can live with less power (and we understand your language) , we can take registrations in a less expressive language (and internally translate to kif). 5. (somewhat trivial) some web usability mods to IW Browser (cookies!) this may need a dialog as well. we are happy to discuss and adapt if useful. It's not clear to me right now what resources are available at the W3C/MIT end, but hopefully we'll figure that out soon. we are eager to collaborate so we would like to help. we will need a partner from your side of course so whenever you understand your resource situation, please contact us. thx for the great conversation. we look forward to more. deborah -- sandro
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 12:11:59 UTC